OK, well there's no punchline, the story is an unbelievable enough tale of knee-jerk reactionism as it is. As it stands, I'm backing the bishop on this one. I don't totally agree with what The Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) said, but I do think that to claim he needs to resign, or that he was out of order for making such comments are ridiculous on two counts. The first is that this is thankfully a free country where a man can make a learned case for a new idea in intellectual company and shouldn't be criticised for doing so. The second is that the outrage largely seems to come from members of his Church that completely misunderstand how much of a subtle nudge this was for Christianity to be given more of it's own weight in deciding legal matters.

All in all his idea did seem to encroach a little too much, in his initial speech, on religious based laws being offered as parallel alternatives to British law. He has since clarified that the rule of British law over everything else should not be questioned, and we have to ask if that's a back track rather than what he originally said, but either way he's clarified his statement and has left no room for misinterpretation.

Unfortunately the more stupid side of the press have the bit between their teeth on this one and don't seem to be able to listen to reason. Melanie Phillips was on Question Time this past Thursday and was completely unwilling to do anything but misrepresent the ABC's view. Referring constantly to what he originally said rather than what was clarified is a typical tactic of those with no ability to continue their favourite argument after they've started it. The sad thing is she may not be alone in the idea that implementations of Sharia law into the legal system, as with the Bin Deths system for Judaism, would result in stonings and other barbaric sentencing.

The reality is that you of course can quite happily implement advocacy schemes into British law, take Sharia to be used and utilised in specific circumstances between consenting parties, and keep that limitation. On the same program Clive James described it as the thin end of the wedge, but that runs contrary to the truth in that British law has been very accommodating to religion without ever giving up it's overarching power at any point.

I don't have a problem with this, if a couple married under Sharia law both wish to be divorced under sharia law (if that's even possible) then assuming that it is within the construct of British law there is no issue with such "delegations" being made.

But what with the ABC? Well leave the poor old man alone, he's part of a dying religion in this country and is fighting for legitimacy constantly in the modern secular society. He's allowed his opinions and, shock horror, you can disagree. Can't we act like the society we are so obviously wishing to defend?